Friday, February 19

Anyone else excited that the Baltimore Ravens signed Donte Stallworth? Like I needed another reason to hate them! Are they trying to collect all of the league's murderers on one organization? When is Leonard Little's contract up?

Let's have some fun with Christopher Hitchens' recent piece in Newsweek, a screed against the Olympics and basically anything sports-related. I generally like some of what Hitchens writes, and usually think he at least marshals a coherent argument for his points even if I don't agree with them (see: War, Iraq), but this piece is a terrible, bitter, artless, pointless diatribe. I can't remember the last time I read something this stupid that wasn't constructed mostly out of anti-atheist sentiments. I'm going to line-by-line it.

Fool’s GoldHow the Olympics and other international competitions breed conflict and bring out the worst in human nature.Without sports: perfect world peace. We're off to a good start here. There are also unflattering photos of athletes mid-competition, which strikes me as a pretty cheap graphic device. People make funny faces during sex too, and you don't see people writing anti-sex articles. Or maybe they do, who knows.

And now for a sports roundup: in Angola in early January a gang of shooters sprays the bus carrying the national soccer team of Togo, killing three people in the process, and a local terrorist group announces that as long as the Africa Cup of Nations tournament is played on Angolan soil, fresh homicides will be committed. The member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) that have the task of hosting both the Cup of Nations and the soccer World Cup in Cape Town this summer are in disarray as a consequence of the dispute between Angola and Congo over the "security" aspects of these allegedly prestigious sporting events.This is a "sports roundup" for you? Have you ever even seen a sporting event? They heve them on TV all the time. This has nothing to do with sports and everything to do with unstable politics. Here's a news roundup: things are kinda messed up in Africa. You don't need to involve soccer to find examples of violent conflict.

On my desk lies an essay by the brilliant South African academic R. W. Johnson, describing the waves of resentment and disruption that are sweeping through the lovely city of Cape Town as the start of the World Cup draws near. Cost overruns and corruption, the closing of schools to make room for a hastily constructed new stadium, violent animosity between taxi drivers and mass-transit workers, constant disputes over the rigging of "draws" for the playoffs, allegations of bribery of referees … Nothing is spared.Corruption and violence in South Africa? Say it ain't so! Plus: please stop using soccer examples. Surely Hitchens must know that soccer is the most popular game in pretty much every developing and third-world country, and is naturally going to be surrounded by some violence. Can I interest you in the NFL Playoffs?

(Incidentally, isn't there something simultaneously grandiose and pathetic about the words "World Cup"? Not unlike the micro-megalomaniac expression "World Series" for a game that only a handful of countries bother to play.)I can see the argument for World Series, even though all of the world's best players come here, but World Cup seems entirely appropriate for the world's by-far most popular game. What else would you call it? How on Earth is that pathetic?

My newspaper this morning bears the tidings of another unappealing moment in Indo-Pakistani relations: Pakistani lawmakers have canceled a proposed tour of India after the larger neighbor's Premier League failed to bid for any of the 11 Pakistani cricketers who had offered themselves.You can't seriously be blaming Indo-Pakistani tensions on cricket. Can you be? A well-balanced article here might have mentioned ping-pong diplomacy, or the progress Jackie Robinson's integration into MLB made towards civil rights, but Hitchens does not believe in balance.

Meanwhile, genial, welcoming, equable Canada, shortly to be the host of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, is now the object of a stream of complaints from British and American sports officials, who say that their athletes are being denied full access to the venue's ski runs, tracks, and skating rinks. Familiarity with these is important in training and rehearsal, but the Canadians are evidently determined to protect their home-turf advantage. According to one report in The New York Times, the Whistler downhill skiing course was the setting for an astonishing scene, as "several medal contenders were left watching over a fence as the Canadian team trained. 'Everybody was pushing to get on that downhill,' said Max Gartner, Alpine Canada's chief athletic officer. 'That's an advantage we cannot give away.' " Nah nah nah nah nah: it's our mountain and you can't ski on it, so there, or not until we've had the best of it. "We're the only country to host two Olympic Games [Montreal in 1976 and Calgary in 1988] and never have won a gold medal at our Games," whined Cathy Priestner Allinger, an executive vice president of the Vancouver Organizing Committee. "It's not a record we're proud of." But elbowing guests out of your way at your own party—of that you can be proud.Not Canada's finest moment. The solution: let's cancel all sports forever!

I didn't have to read far to find the comment I knew would be made about this spiteful, petty conduct. A hurt-sounding Ron Rossi, who is executive director of something snow-oriented called USA Luge,Even if you somehow don't know what luge is, would it really have taken so long to look it up? Don't you have an assistant? I'd say luge is more "ice-oriented" than "snow-oriented." Either way, this phrasing is unnecessarily belittling, and I don't want Hitchens to think he got away with it without me noticing.

spoke in wounded tones about a supposed "gentlemen's agreement" extending back to Lake Placid in 1980, and said of the underhanded Canadian tactic: "I think it shows a lack of sportsmanship."Agreed.

On the contrary, Mr. Rossi, what we are seeing is the very essence of sportsmanship.You have apparently never once, ever, participated in an athletic activity. Go have another cocktail.

Whether it's the exacerbation of national rivalries that you want — as in Africa this year — or the exhibition of the most depressing traits of the human personality (guns in locker rooms, golf clubs wielded in the home, dogs maimed and tortured at stars' homes to make them fight, dope and steroids everywhere)None of these things have anything to do with sports. Millions of people have problems with guns, domestic violence, animal abuse, and substance abuse - we just hear about the ones involving pro athletes because they are famous. Do you actually think that, if people did not participate in sports, these sorts of things would not occur? There's neither correlation nor causation here.

you need only look to the wide world of sports for the most rank and vivid examples. As George Orwell wrote in his 1945 essay "The Sporting Spirit," after yet another outbreak of combined mayhem and chauvinism on the international soccer fieldSTOP USING SOCCER! SOCCER FANS ARE INSANE! THERE ARE MANY OTHER SPORTS! REALLY! NO SOCCER! BAAAD SOCCER! MESS YOU UP!

"sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will."So, I hate all the guys I play basketball with? Weird, I thought we developed friendships by playing games. Good thing Hitchens is here to tell me these things. I wonder who else I have ill-will towards?

As he went on to say: "I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn't know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles."Remember the orgy of hatred that followed the Super Bowl this year? Me neither.

Putting it a bit strongly, you say. But what about the border war between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969, when the violence set off by a disputed soccer match escalated to the point of aerial bombardment? In Khartoum recently, a soccer game between Egypt and Algeria led to widespread violence, a sharp exchange of diplomatic notes, a speech about affronted national honor from President Hosni Mubarak, hysterical hatred pumped out on state media, and an all-round deterioration of what you might call civility. And this between two members of the Arab League!A group historically known for rational, calm discussion of international affairs.

Incidentally, that observation takes care of the excuse that is sometimes offered: that if rival countries confine their contests to the sporting field, they allow the quarrel between them to be settled vicariously. Before the match in Khartoum, Egypt and Algeria had no diplomatic quarrel. After the game, perfectly serious people in Cairo were saying the atmosphere resembled that following the country's defeat in the June 1967 war … In the India-Pakistan case the position is almost the reverse: relations between the two countries have been poisonous enough for decades, but there is no doubt that the cricket snub has almost effortlessly made a very bad situation even worse.I've already made this point several times, but let's try again: these countries already don't like each other. Sports are tangential to nations warring.

Yes, yes, I know about Invictus and am a slight friend and strong admirer of the author of the original book. But it was the use of rugby and other sporting cults to reinforce and exemplify apartheid that had been the problem in the first place. And no clear-eyed observer of the South African scene thinks that the Invictus moment was any more than a brief pause in the steady decline of friendship between the country's ethnic groups: a decline that has much to do with sporting rivalries and the idiotic loyalties and customs on which such allegiances depend. So here's something so toxic that it's even Mandela-proof.I didn't see Invictus, but nothing Hitchens has written so far makes me inclined to trust his take on it.

(I suppose that the people who so willingly describe themselves as "fans" are aware of the etymology of the term but consider it to be no insult.)You are correct on both fronts.

I'm not done. Our own political discourse, already emaciated enough, has been further degraded by the continuous importation of sports "metaphors": lame and vapid and cheery expressions like "bottom of the ninth," "goal line," and who knows what other tripe.These are actual metaphors - your haughty disdain of them does not warrant the use of quotation marks around the word. Nice try, though. Frankly, I don't see what's problematic about these expressions. Is making an analogy between a political process and a well-known phenomenon from athletics such a bad thing?

Hard enough on the eyes and ears as this is — and there are some cartoonists who can't seem to draw without it — it also increases the deplorable tendency to look at the party system as a matter of team loyalty, which is the most trivial and parochial form that attachment can take.Partisanship = Because of sports.

Meanwhile, the sponsorship racket means that a string of thugs and mediocritiesLike Roger Federer and Peyton Manning, to name two.

is regularly marketed and presented for "role modeling" purposes, and it's considered normal for serious programming to be postponed or even interrupted if some dull game goes into (the very words are like a knell) overtime.Oh no, 60 Minutes is on five minutes late!

I can't count the number of times that I have picked up the newspaper at a time of crisis and found whole swaths of the front page given over either to the already known result of some other dull game or to the moral or criminal depredations of some overpaid steroid swallower.It was at this point that I resolved to write this article blasting Hitchens' ridiculous hatchet job. There are so many things wrong with it, I'm having trouble keeping score. It's like a full-court press of inaccuracies. A home run of inanity. A perfect game of pompousness.

I like the semi-heroic imagery of his lunging for a newspaper during "a time of crisis." I like the overdramatization where the sports headlines (which almost always are confined to an upper corner) completely block his ability to understand said crisis.

Then there's the phrase "the already known result of some other dull game." First off, are you suggesting that newspapers should publish unknown results, perhaps of games that are to take place in the near future? Should they do the same thing with political news as well? "Already known" is a bizarre adjective here. Then we have "some other dull game." How do you know it was dull? You obviously didn't watch it and are too self-important to read about it, so what exactly leads you to conclude that it was dull? Maybe it was really exciting, like Cavs-Nuggets last night, or the NFC Championship.

Listen: the paper has a whole separate section devoted to people who want to degrade the act of reading by staring enthusiastically at the outcomes of sporting events that occurred the previous day.Here's a TFB challenge: find me a sentence more pompous than this one. I doubt you'll succeed. "Degrade the act of reading"? Dude, make sure you don't fall from that high horse.

These avid consumers also have tons of dedicated channels and publications that are lovingly contoured to their special needs. All I ask is that they keep out of the grown-up parts of the paper.Thanks for the condescension. You know, a lot of people think English literature is every bit as aimless as you think sports are.

Or picture this: I take a seat in a bar or restaurant and suddenly leap to my feet, face contorted with delight or woe, yelling and gesticulating and looking as if I am fighting bees. I would expect the maitre d' to say a quietening word at the least, mentioning the presence of other people.Sports bars don't have maitre d's, you idiot.

But then all I need do is utter some dumb incantation — "Steelers,"I agree that "Steelers" is pretty dumb :)

say, or even "Cubs," for crumb's sake — and everybody decides I am a special case who deserves to be treated in a soothing manner.You may not be aware of this, but people tend to watch sports in groups. It's a fun social activity. Thus, you're not a "special case." And I can't recall having been treated in a "soothing manner" for having cheered for a sports team in a public eatery. What planet is this guy from?

Or else given a wide berth: ever been caught up in a fight over a match that you didn't even know was being played?"Game," not "match," Zoolander. One of the chief problems with this piece, other than its unnecessary hostility and overbearing condescension, is that Hitchens apparently knows almost nothing about sports. It's generally not a good idea to tackle a subject about which you have no knowledge. Does anyone get the feeling that Chris wasn't a real great athlete in his day?

Or seen the pathetic faces of men, and even some women, trying to keep up with the pack by professing devoted loyalty to some other pack on the screen?I don't especially like my face being called "pathetic." Take that back! And most sports fans aren't posers as you claim. I root for my teams because I like them.

If you want a decent sports metaphor that applies as well to the herd of fans as it does to the players, try picking one from the most recent scandal. All those concerned look — and talk — as if they were suffering from a concussion.How is this a metaphor?

Wait! Have you ever had a discussion about higher education that wasn't polluted with babble about the college team and the amazingly lavish on-campus facilities for the cult of athletic warfare?Yes.

Noticed how the sign of a bad high school getting toward its Columbine moment is that the jocks are in the saddle?No.

Worried when retired generals appear on the screen and talk stupidly about "touchdowns" in Afghanistan?That means "good." I can write you up a list if it will help.

By a sort of Gresham's law, the emphasis on sports has a steadily reducing effect on the lowest common denominator, in its own field and in every other one that allows itself to be infected by it.Sports = pure viral evil.

Though I didn't think the story belonged in the news section at all, I did learn today that there's not enough snow for this bloatedly funded spitefestSpitefest.

in Vancouver and so they'll be choppering some white stuff in from the north. That at least might be momentarily interesting to watch (Haitians in particular would, I bet, be riveted to see it).Way to exploit a recent tragedy that has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. I really thought you were better than this, Mr. Hitchens.

Meanwhile, with millions of other don't-care people, I won't be able to escape the pulverizing tedium of the events themselves.If you don't like them, don't fucking watch them.

Global warming never seemed a more inviting prospect. Let it not snow, let it not snow, let it not snow.Global warming increases precipitation, including snow. Maybe if there weren't all those articles about sports on the front page of the newspaper's science section, you might know that.

Let's roll with my 10 favorites and 10 least favorites from the four major North American sports leagues, plus some goodies and baddies that didn't crack the Top 10's. No Cleveland teams, because I can't be unbiased.

Dishonorable mention BadWashington Nationals: Kind of a lazy effort here. Why not go back to "Senators"? Other than the fact that no one respects actual senators anymore, that is.

Oakland Athletics: Obviously you're Athletic - that's why you're a professional sports franchise. This holdover from the franchise's Philadelphia days is one that definitely called for a fresh start.

Charlotte Bobcats/Carolina Panthers: Are these high school football teams or professional sports organizations? As recently as these North Carolina clubs were established, you'd think they could do something a bit more clever than big cats.

Buffalo Buffaloes: This goes for the football team, hockey team, and baseball team, all of which use the buffalo as their primary logo yet a nonsensical alternate name as the mascot. Why bother to call yourself the "Sabres" if you're going to festoon your jerseys with a giant buffalo head?

Los Angeles Clippers/Columbus Blue Jackets: Frankly, I don't know what these are supposed to mean. This smacks of flipping a dictionary open to a random page.

New Orleans Hornets: Considering that the Charlotte Hornets had like five fans, including this one dick guy I used to work with at the City (he was doing community service) who owned a brimless Hornets hat, a name reset would seem to have been in order. That guy was such a piece of shit.

Atlanta Thrashers: Is that bird in the center of the logo supposed to mean something? Is it thrashing?

Washington Wizards: Even before the Arenas/Crittenton flap, I never liked them ditching the Bullets name, to the point where I generally and stubbornly refer to them by the old name.

Colorado RockiesIf Cleveland had a giant mountain range, I would want at least one of our sporting franchises named after it. Does Chile have a team called the Andes? Because that's a fucking awesome name for a team. The Santiago Andes.

Pittsburgh PenguinsDefending Stanley Cup Champions. Sorry, had to add that. What can I say - I like alliteration, plus the idea that they actually have a cold-weather mascot, unlike...

New Jersey DevilsCool name, but the ice would melt in hell. Though they do play '90's trap-style hockey like the Devils used to in hell, I assume.

New York RangersThings sound cool after "New York." It's an unfair edge.

St Louis BluesSmooth.

Toronto Maple LeafsYeah, we're named after foliage - got a problem with that? I also like calling them the "Leaves."

Edmonton OilersIn case you were wondering where Canada's natural resources are located. It's fun AND educational.

Philadelphia 76ersHistory lesson!

Houston Rockets"Astronauts" would have been cool too.

Detroit PistonsSolid Motor City nickname, but what's up with that horse logo?

Denver NuggetsI like how they went with this over Denver Metal or Denver Gold. Wait, what am I saying? Denver Metal would be terrific, though there's probably a junkyard or something already called that.

Milwaukee BucksOf all the ones I looked at here, this might have the best ring to it. Say it out loud a few times if you don't believe me.

Oakland RaidersLA Raiders cracks the top 10. This just doesn't sound great, though "Raiders" is super-cool.

Tennessee TitansYes, it is because I like to call them the "Titties." And it's nice double-alliteration.

New Orleans SaintsPerson in crowd: "Who's going to win the Super Bowl, AWESOME-O?"AWESOME-O: "The New Orleans Saints."

Pittsburgh SteelersI'm being very magnanimous here, but it's an undeniably cool name.

The Dumbest Names in Pro Sports10 Arizona CardinalsThere are no Cardinals in Arizona. QED

9) Houston TexansCan you imagine rooting for the Cleveland Ohioans, the Detroit Michiganers, or the Philadelphia Pennsylvanians? OK, the latter is actually an upgrade for their baseball club, but this is a generally dumb idea. I know, there used to be a Dallas Texans, but that's a whole different city that happens to have a fairly successful team now, and it wasn't a particularly inspiring name to start with. It's no "Oilers," that's for damn sure.

8) Los Angeles LakersTHERE ARE NO LAKES IN LOS ANGELES! In fact, there's so little water that they have to steal it from neighboring areas. Hasn't anyone ever seen Chinatown? They should at least be blue, not purple. I wonder if the Minnesota Twins moved to LA, if they'd keep "Twins" even though there's only one LA? I bet the Angels wish they'd grabbed Twins sooner.

6) Utah JazzAlmost without question the least-jazzy place in America. I'll never understand these legacy names - once you've uprooted a team from its home and its fanbase, what do you possibly have to gain from hanging on to a name, especially one particular to the original region? Bizarre. As douchey as the SuperSonics move was, at least Oklahoma City didn't hang on to that one. Oklahoma City SuperSonics would have been #2 on this list.

5) Detroit Red WingsI can criticize this one on both WTF? grounds, as well as the grounds of what "red wings" means in sexual slang terms. Check it out on Urban Dictionary. It doesn't help that I abhor their practice of calling Detroit "Hockeytown."

4) Anaheim DucksIt's not a good sign when I can't tell whether I like a team's name more after changing it when the original name was taken from a Disney film. That name change was the Puff Daddy to P.Diddy of pro sports. Maybe it's just me, but I like a little tougher-sounding mascot.

3) Chicago White Sox/Boston Red SoxNaming a team after the color of their stockings doesn't seem to me like a particularly appealing route to go, especially when the White Socks usually sport black ones. I mean, this was only 100 years ago or so - were we really that backwards? How did this come about anyway - did the teams not have names to start with and were just given these names by sportswriters who totally lacked any creativity whatsoever.

2) Philadelphia PhilliesThere's nothing I can say here that The Simpsons haven't already by naming Springfield's rival the Shelbyville Shelbyvillians.

1) Los Angeles Angels of AnaheimFor sheer inanity, this name is utterly unbeatable. First of all, you can't be the One City Players of Another City. That's stupid. Pick one, or go back to "California." Second, the translation in Spanish is "Los Los Angeles Angeles de Anaheim," which is somehow even stupider than the English version. Unreal.

The Best Names in Pro Sports (unordered)10) Milwaukee BrewersLike I'm NOT going to put the team named for the city's beer-making tradition in my Top 10? It's be higher, but I can't let go how they don't have Barney Brewer slide into a beer mug anymore.

9) Pittsburgh PiratesYeargh!

8) Texas RangersIf Chuck Norris wasn't such a douche, this might be in my Top 10. Even better is the Spanish translation: Los Vigilantes.

6) Montreal CanadiensClassic, down to the Quebecois spelling. Bonus points for "Habs" (Les Habitants), the coolest alt-nickname this side of The Tribe.

5) Portland Trail BlazersI give special uniqueness points for this one, which works equally well with and without the "Trail" part.

4) Dallas CowboysYou don't get to be America's Team without a catchy name.

3) Miami DolphinsFinkel is Einhorn...Einhorn is Finkel!

2) Phoenix SunsThere is simply no better name for this franchise. It sounds great, it is perfect.

1) Vancouver CanucksIt's like, everyone knows that "Canuck" is a fun slang term for a Canadian person, and then they go and name a team that! Shh...nobody tell.Let's roll with my 10 favorites and 10 least favorites from the four major North American sports leagues, plus some goodies and baddies that didn't crack the Top 10's. No Cleveland teams, because I can't be unbiased.

Dishonorable mention BadWashington Nationals: Kind of a lazy effort here. Why not go back to "Senators"? Other than the fact that no one respects actual senators anymore, that is.

Oakland Athletics: Obviously you're Athletic - that's why you're a professional sports franchise. This holdover from the franchise's Philadelphia days is one that definitely called for a fresh start.

Charlotte Bobcats/Carolina Panthers: Are these high school football teams or professional sports organizations? As recently as these North Carolina clubs were established, you'd think they could do something a bit more clever than big cats.

Buffalo Buffaloes: This goes for the football team, hockey team, and baseball team, all of which use the buffalo as their primary logo yet a nonsensical alternate name as the mascot. Why bother to call yourself the "Sabres" if you're going to festoon your jerseys with a giant buffalo head?

Los Angeles Clippers/Columbus Blue Jackets: Frankly, I don't know what these are supposed to mean. This smacks of flipping a dictionary open to a random page.

New Orleans Hornets: Considering that the Charlotte Hornets had like five fans, including this one dick guy I used to work with at the City (he was doing community service) who owned a brimless Hornets hat, a name reset would seem to have been in order. That guy was such a piece of shit.

Atlanta Thrashers: Is that bird in the center of the logo supposed to mean something? Is it thrashing?

Washington Wizards: Even before the Arenas/Crittenton flap, I never liked them ditching the Bullets name, to the point where I generally and stubbornly refer to them by the old name.

Colorado RockiesIf Cleveland had a giant mountain range, I would want at least one of our sporting franchises named after it. Does Chile have a team called the Andes? Because that's a fucking awesome name for a team. The Santiago Andes.

Pittsburgh PenguinsDefending Stanley Cup Champions. Sorry, had to add that. What can I say - I like alliteration, plus the idea that they actually have a cold-weather mascot, unlike...

New Jersey DevilsCool name, but the ice would melt in hell. Though they do play '90's trap-style hockey like the Devils used to in hell, I assume.

New York RangersThings sound cool after "New York." It's an unfair edge.

St Louis BluesSmooth.

Toronto Maple LeafsYeah, we're named after foliage - got a problem with that? I also like calling them the "Leaves."

Edmonton OilersIn case you were wondering where Canada's natural resources are located. It's fun AND educational.

Philadelphia 76ersHistory lesson!

Houston Rockets"Astronauts" would have been cool too.

Detroit PistonsSolid Motor City nickname, but what's up with that horse logo?

Denver NuggetsI like how they went with this over Denver Metal or Denver Gold. Wait, what am I saying? Denver Metal would be terrific, though there's probably a junkyard or something already called that.

Milwaukee BucksOf all the ones I looked at here, this might have the best ring to it. Say it out loud a few times if you don't believe me.

Oakland RaidersLA Raiders cracks the top 10. This just doesn't sound great, though "Raiders" is super-cool.

Tennessee TitansYes, it is because I like to call them the "Titties." And it's nice double-alliteration.

New Orleans SaintsPerson in crowd: "Who's going to win the Super Bowl, AWESOME-O?"AWESOME-O: "The New Orleans Saints."

Pittsburgh SteelersI'm being very magnanimous here, but it's an undeniably cool name.

The Dumbest Names in Pro Sports10 Arizona CardinalsThere are no Cardinals in Arizona. QED

9) Houston TexansCan you imagine rooting for the Cleveland Ohioans, the Detroit Michiganers, or the Philadelphia Pennsylvanians? OK, the latter is actually an upgrade for their baseball club, but this is a generally dumb idea. I know, there used to be a Dallas Texans, but that's a whole different city that happens to have a fairly successful team now, and it wasn't a particularly inspiring name to start with. It's no "Oilers," that's for damn sure.

8) Los Angeles LakersTHERE ARE NO LAKES IN LOS ANGELES! In fact, there's so little water that they have to steal it from neighboring areas. Hasn't anyone ever seen Chinatown? They should at least be blue, not purple. I wonder if the Minnesota Twins moved to LA, if they'd keep "Twins" even though there's only one LA? I bet the Angels wish they'd grabbed Twins sooner.

6) Utah JazzAlmost without question the least-jazzy place in America. I'll never understand these legacy names - once you've uprooted a team from its home and its fanbase, what do you possibly have to gain from hanging on to a name, especially one particular to the original region? Bizarre. As douchey as the SuperSonics move was, at least Oklahoma City didn't hang on to that one. Oklahoma City SuperSonics would have been #2 on this list.

5) Detroit Red WingsI can criticize this one on both WTF? grounds, as well as the grounds of what "red wings" means in sexual slang terms. Check it out on Urban Dictionary. It doesn't help that I abhor their practice of calling Detroit "Hockeytown."

4) Anaheim DucksIt's not a good sign when I can't tell whether I like a team's name more after changing it when the original name was taken from a Disney film. That name change was the Puff Daddy to P.Diddy of pro sports. Maybe it's just me, but I like a little tougher-sounding mascot.

3) Chicago White Sox/Boston Red SoxNaming a team after the color of their stockings doesn't seem to me like a particularly appealing route to go, especially when the White Socks usually sport black ones. I mean, this was only 100 years ago or so - were we really that backwards? How did this come about anyway - did the teams not have names to start with and were just given these names by sportswriters who totally lacked any creativity whatsoever.

2) Philadelphia PhilliesThere's nothing I can say here that The Simpsons haven't already by naming Springfield's rival the Shelbyville Shelbyvillians.

1) Los Angeles Angels of AnaheimFor sheer inanity, this name is utterly unbeatable. First of all, you can't be the One City Players of Another City. That's stupid. Pick one, or go back to "California." Second, the translation in Spanish is "Los Los Angeles Angeles de Anaheim," which is somehow even stupider than the English version. Unreal.

The Best Names in Pro Sports (unordered)10) Milwaukee BrewersLike I'm NOT going to put the team named for the city's beer-making tradition in my Top 10? It's be higher, but I can't let go how they don't have Barney Brewer slide into a beer mug anymore.

9) Pittsburgh PiratesYeargh!

8) Texas RangersIf Chuck Norris wasn't such a douche, this might be in my Top 10. Even better is the Spanish translation: Los Vigilantes.

Thursday, February 18

If you're like most people, you don't read my sportswriting for the sort of analysis you can get from any sportswriter. In fact, if you're like most people, you don't read anything I write at all. But when you do, you expect me to have a clever angle that the other guys just don't see, and believe me, I got that in spades today. Be ready for my bold, insightful second-half Cavalier predictions:

- The Cavs will win a lot of games.

- They will not lose very many games.

- They will qualify for the Eastern Conference Playoffs.

- LeBron James will be one of the club's top players.

- They will focus on the basket area. Note: this was one of the "keys to the game" before the recent Nets game, as if there was anywhere else a basketball team could possibly focus. The other key was: don't take them lightly. Sorry, guys, you can definitely take a 4-46 team lightly. The Cavs did just that and still won easily. Probably by focusing on the basket area.

- JJ Hickson will shoot a high percentage of high-percentage shots.

- Coach Brown will eagerly discuss the team's defensive work.

- Anderson Varejao will be knocked down while defending an opposing player who is attempting to score.

- LeBron James will not play for the New York Knicks or New Jersey Nets the rest of this season.

- Editor's note: this just happened: Holy shit, we have Antawn Jamison now! 'm pretty sure George Costanza swung this trade: "I found a way we can get Jamison and Telfair...and we wouldn't even have to give up that much!"

- Seriously, this trade is a joke - we give up a #1 pick way the hell at the bottom of the round and Z's expiring deal (which we may or may not get back) and get a guy averaging 20.5/8.8. I feel the sort of remorse Yankee fans must feel, or would if they had souls.

- Suddenly, that $20 I put on the Cavaliers at 3:1 is looking extra-good. Vegas should just pay it out early to beat the rush.

We should start calling Cavs GM Danny Ferry “Danny Ocean,” because he just pulled off yet another heist. Antawn Jamison is a name that’s been on the Cavaliers’ trade radar for two years, and he’ll finally be wearing wine and gold.

On Thursday evening, the Cavs finalized a three-team deal with the Washington Wizards and the Los Angeles Clippers which brings Jamison and injured guard Sebastian Telfair to Cleveland. All the Cavs had to give up was Zydrunas Ilgauskas’ expiring contract and their first pick in this summer’s draft, which will likely be the 29th or 30th pick.

The Wizards will probably negotiate a buyout with Ilgauskas, giving him the opportunity to return to Cleveland after 30 days. In spite of reports that other teams will be interested in Z, it’s tough to envision him going anywhere but Cleveland. George Costanza once told Yankees boss George Steinbrenner, “I think I may have found a way for us to get Bonds and Griffey, and we wouldn't have to give up that much.” This Jamison deal feels a lot like that, except it’s not a sitcom. This, folks, is reality television.

As the trade winds swirled at cyclonic speeds around the Cavs this weekend, Danny Ferry was in hot pursuit of four players: power forwards Amar’e Stoudemire, Antawn Jamison, and Troy Murphy, and swingman Corey Maggette. Unnamed sources within the organization suggested that the Cavs ranked the four players in that same order of preference, but there was a contingent within the Cavs organization who actually preferred Jamison.

The fan base was also split on which player to pursue. You know things are going well when half of your fan base is at least mildly disappointed by filling a hole in the starting five with a veteran who has averaged 18 points per game in 11 of his 12 seasons. Did I mention that all the Cavs really gave up was a first round pick?

The Cavs had put a trade package together with the Suns that likely included Ilgauskas, promising young forward JJ Hickson, Danny Green, and at least one first rounder. Phoenix was lukewarm on such a deal, as they were obviously getting shortchanged talent-wise. Phoenix wanted to wait and see if a better offer presented itself in the eleventh hour, so the Cavs pulled the trigger on Jamison. After Suns GM Steve Kerr balked at trading Shaquille O’Neal to the Cavs at the trade deadline last year, Danny Ferry wasn’t going to let the indecisive Kerr dictate whether or not he upgraded his Cavs. After being stood up last February, Ferry had clearly learned his lesson.

What is so remarkable about this trade is that a month ago the Cavs would have been thrilled to add Jamison for Z’s expiring contract and Hickson. Instead, the Cavs essentially swapped Hickson out for an extremely low first round pick – a pick which is worth far less than Hickson, who has displayed vast potential.

Danny Ferry had to make a move before the deadline. Sure, the Cavs have the best record in the NBA, but the way their payroll is constructed prevents them from making significant additions in free agency for the next couple of summers. Unless something bizarre were to occur, the only way the Cavs could add a significant piece to their club over the next few seasons is via trade, and the best way to do that is to use expiring contracts to give poorly-performing teams some cap relief in exchange for talent.

With that in mind, Ferry had to use Ilgauskas’ expiring contract to either add a player who could be a significant piece for the next few seasons (e.g. Stoudemire or Jamison), or acquire a player whose contract would expire next season (e.g. Troy Murphy), essentially rolling over the expiring deal into next season to give himself a chance to add a piece over the summer or before next year’s deadline. The fact that Murphy could have helped the Cavs would have been a bonus.

Ferry was able to pounce on Jamison, who should seamlessly slide in the Cavs starting five, relegating JJ Hickson to the bench. Jamison will turn 34 in June, and his main goal at this point in his career is to win a title. As such, he quietly asked the Wizards to trade him, and LeBron James and the Cavaliers were waiting with open arms. His veteran leadership, professionalism, and focus on winning his first ring will all be welcomed in Cleveland.

Jamison is an excellent jump shooter with range – exactly the type of “stretch four” the Cavs have been seeking. The North Carolina product is also a terrific scorer, and can create his own shot if called upon. So far this season Jamison is averaging 20.5 points per game, shooting 45% from the field, and 34.5% from downtown. Expect his scoring to decrease, and his shooting efficiency to increase as he should find plenty of open looks as the third or fourth option with LeBron James, Shaq, and Mo Williams.

I was on the fence during most of the Stoudemire/Jamison debate, but in the last day or two I found myself starting to favor Jamison. There is no doubt that Amar’e is a talented player and that the Cavs’ ceiling would be higher with him on board, but he has several warts that make him a much riskier acquisition than the dependable Jamison.

Stoudemire has been plagued by knee problems, and has played 55 games or fewer in 3 of his 8 professional seasons. In 2005 he underwent microfracture surgery to repair damaged knee cartilage, and he played in only three games during the 2005-2006 season. Knee problems for NBA big men are a major red flag.

Last season Stoudemire only played 53 games after his season was ended by a detached retina suffered on February 19th. Stoudemire’s eye has healed, and he now wears goggles for protection, but a stray finger in the eye could end his basketball career.

Call me risk averse, but I’m not doing back flips over giving a guy with that kind of injury baggage upwards of $20 million a year for 5 years. The fact that the Suns – even with their legendary training staff – weren’t comfortable giving Stoudemire a max contract should tell us a great deal about what a huge injury risk he is.

Off the top of your head, where would you set the odds of Stoudemire missing at least half a season due to injury if he played in Cleveland for five years? Twenty percent? Twenty-five? Marrying yourself to Amar’e through much of LeBron James’ prime is an awfully big risk when you consider those odds. Of course the eye injury is a freak injury, but there are some guys who are for whatever reason snake-bitten and injury-prone. Amar’e may very well be one such player.

We can certainly have a spirited debate involving Amar’e Stoudemrie injury speculation, but it doesn’t seem like anyone is questioning the fact that Antawn Jamison is a better fit for the Cavs this season. Considering the kind of shape Jamison keeps himself in, and that he’s shown no signs of diminishing skills over the past few years, you can probably make a compelling argument that Jamison might be a better fit next season, too.

Amar’e definitely could be the better long-term solution, but if Jamison gives the Cavs a better chance to win in the next season or two, that can’t be taken lightly. If we assume that LeBron James isn’t going anywhere, then we can safely say that at age 25, he has maybe 10 seasons (give or take) during which he can play at the level he’s at currently. If adding Jamison instead of Stoudemire gives you a better chance to win a title in one or two of those seasons, then that’s a significant variable. The fact that an injury to Amar’e – freakish or otherwise – could take the Cavs out of contention for a season or two also should be considered.

On a personal note, I’ve never been totally comfortable with Amar’e. I’m a big believer that winning cures most illnesses, but it also makes me very uncomfortable when guys are grumbling about shots and stats on winning teams. Stoudemire supposedly was one such player on a winning Phoenix Suns team.

We should at least acknowledge that such behavior could be problematic given that Amar’e can become a free agent this summer and that he would be the third or fourth option on a very good Cavs team, thus seeing a dip in his shot attempts and scoring. I’m far from convinced that character issues would have caused problems for Amar’e in Cleveland but given his history, Stoudemire’s character is much closer to a “con” than a “pro.”

The bottom line is that the Cavs are a much better team today than they were yesterday. It might not quite be the Pau Gasol trade, but Danny Ferry has once again flipped something insignificant for another piece of his championship puzzle. The Cavs have made their bed with Antawn Jamison for at least the next two seasons, and Jamison’s arrival probably means that Shaquille O’Neal will return for at least one more season, as well.

If everyone can stay healthy, the Cavs look like the prohibitive favorites to hoist the Larry O’Brien trophy not only this season, but next season. We haven’t heard the term “prohibitive favorite” attached to a Cleveland team since the juggernaut Indians teams of the 1990s. We don’t get these chances very often. June can’t get here fast enough.

Friday, February 12

"NASCAR officials told drivers before Thursday's 150-mile qualifying races that it will have up to three green-white-checkered restarts if the first and second attempts don't make it through the first lap without a caution."

What on earth could that possibly mean? Ridiculous. A while back, I ranked February the 3rd-worst sports month of the year - can July and August really be this boring?

Monday, February 8

Well, in our final pick of the year on FCF last week, Nick and Bucko said that the Indianapolis Colts would, but Drew Brees and company had other ideas as the New Orleans Saints claimed their first NFL title with a 31-17 victory. For completeness sake, I'll mention that the Saints won the turnover battle 1-0 (plus their onside kick recovery), bringing winning playoff teams to +22, or an even +2 per contest.

Man, that sucks that we won't have any more football for like seven months. Let's summarize the year in prognosticating for our fearless team:

Every year, some dummy writes an article about how the Super Bowl is overhyped, as if that was even possible, but Celizic instead points out what a glorious celebration and cultural event the Big Game is. As a longtime Super Bowl afficionado, this non-cynical take was really encouraging.

Friday, February 5

The epic Saints-Vikes NFC Championship game was probably the best example of how strongly the turnover battle has dominated the NFL Postseason this year. Minnesota semi-literally fumbled that game away, outplaying New Orleans but turning the ball over five times to just one for the Saints. There's no reason the Vikings should have lost that game. The Colts became the first team this postseason to win a game without a positive turnover margin, as both they and the Jets committed one turnover apiece. Good thing the Colts had a positive quarterback margin, as Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis offense were totally unstoppable from the end of the second quarter on. For the record, the 10 playoff game winners thus far are +21 in turnovers.

Sunday 6 pmCOLTS (-6) vs SaintsAndy: I've improved my winning percentage every week so far in the playoffs; (1) .000, (2) .250, and (3) .500. Look for me to nail the Super Bowl and continue the trend. And Bucko, I will discuss turnovers as much as I like.

I've seen this line move up steadily from -4 to -6, and I'm not surprised in the least. The Colts are hot, and no one wants to go against Peyton Manning without getting a TD. That's the conventional wisdom, right? Don't go against Peyton? But is it justified? I mean, the bookmakers must adjust those lines to account for the Colts' offensive prowess, don't they? Well, not very well, they don't, at least in 2010. Including playoffs, Indy is now 12-5-1 against the spread this season. And it's not because of the dome - they're 7-1 ATS on the road and 6-0 on grass. Miami isn't exactly the road, since New Orleans doesn't call Dolphin Stadium home, but it's away from Lucas Oil, and it is on grass. Using this historical trend for the year, the Colts look like a good bet.

Naturally, I'm taking the Saints. Why? Because I like the Saints, that's why. I've been supporting them all year, as you've read during my weekly picks. I want them to win because I love seeing teams win their first championships as long as that team is not located in Maryland and named after a 19th-century short story. I'm sure Nick's head has exploded already, he's repeated his mantra "bet with your head, not with your heart" like 20 times to calm himself down, and may have expressed a dismal view of my intelligence.

But is Nick's mantra good advice? Not really. Let's face it: no matter how much you think these games can be analyzed and bet correctly, there are no locks. They're all toss-ups, even the ones you feel strongly about. That's why bookmaking is profitable. No matter how strong of a feeling you have on a game, it's still pretty much always basically a 50/50 proposition. That's why they have the point spread. As vehemently as Nick eschews backing a team for personal reasons, he's sitting at 50.9% over the past two seasons. That's not far off from flipping coins. I'm not criticizing Nick's record - picking NFL games is hard - but I am questioning the absolutist idea that you should never pick a team just because you like them. I'm not much better, and I know that I don't do better in games I feel more strongly about than ones I don't. The point is: picking a team for personal reasons isn't really much different percentage-wise in the long run than making your best logical analysis. Plus, it's a lot more fun, and that has to count for something.

Saints. Because I want for them to win.

Figgs: Because it's the Super Bowl, are we required to make our comments multiple paragrahs? This piss match going on between Andy and Nick is amusing to me. Andy, quit living in the past, it bothers you that Nick is beating you. As a last place finisher for the second consecutive year, I have the right to comment on these things. Oh, there's a game tomorrow? I feel like I should be looking forward to this matchup a lot more than I really am. It's a really good game with two really talented offenses, and I like both teams. But I think its because I like both of them that I'm not as interested as I would like to be. When teams like Pittsburgh and Dallas are in it, I can root really hard against them. Here, I don't really know who to cheer for. I'll take the Saints, expecting another close Super Bowl.

Nick: Say what you want Francis, but I don't consider my 6-3 playoff record an accident. Perhaps you want to reduce all gambling to roulette due to your Las Vegas bloodbath, but sports gambling requires in-depth analysis that leads you to an informed decision. That decision isn't right all of the time, but your system should lead you to the right decision more often than not, or you should find a new system.

The fact is that the Colts were consistently the best team in the league, and they won every time they put their starters on the field for 60 minutes. I'm willing to bet that we see Dwight Freeney out there - he won't be as effective as normal, but he'll still be an asset. Plus, defenses aren't made by one player. The Colts' overall defensive speed can absorb the loss of Freeney.

The Saints haven't been right (at least from a bettor's perspective) since they stomped the Pats on MNF. They're 1-6 (!) ATS in their last 7. In stark contrast, the Colts are 7-2 ATS in their last 9 games. Did I mention that their pair of losses were against New York and Buffalo in games when their starters' minutes were limited?

I'm far from some gambling genius, but I had a good feel for the league and the trends as teams headed into the playoffs this year, and that's paid off big time. That 6-3 record is pretty reflective - I probably shouldn't have won that last Colts game, but I easily could have won that Green Bay game in round one.

This season, picking against Peyton Manning burned me alot, and I'm done doing it. The Colts aren't an all-time great team, but they're the best team in a year that lacked any true power teams. Both teams will move the ball, but Peyton Manning's efficiency in the red zone makes him a great horse to back in any close game (line-wise). The Colts win this thing, and if they get an early lead, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into a lousy game. ($)

Bucko: Does anyone think Francis will ever stop talking about turnovers? I can't believe I went against Peyton last week. I won't make the same mistake again. I'm taking the Colts in this one.Gopo: saints - i've been going back and forth on this pick, but looking at the line andy posted above sealed the deal for me. plus, to andy's point, i'd rather root for the saints than the colts. let new orleans and brees get their due. i am really looking forward to this game though - what a great matchup. i don't think we could have picked a better two teams to play in the final game. aside from a couple weeks of hicups on both sides, i think these were the two best teams all year. the saints have the more explosive offense while the colts have the more consistent offense. i'm not even going to bother talking about the defenses in this one - its not really going to matter. holding a team to a field goal is basically a stop. i think this one will start out a little slow and become a high octane affair in the second half. saints will come to play in this one.

The Cavs took care of business on Thursday night, beating the Miami Heat 102-86 and pushing their winning streak to a league-best 10 games. Once again, they won in spite of serious attrition at guard, except this time there was a new wrinkle.

Daniel Gibson, who has been filling in for injured guards Mo Williams and Delonte West, was scratched from the starting lineup so he could tend to his fiancee, who was having some minor complications with her pregnancy. Jawad Williams started in Boobie's stead, and LeBron served as the de facto point guard as per usual.

Things didn't go swimmingly in Jawad's first NBA start, as he didn't make a single shot, allowed some careless turnovers, and at one point was unable to catch a fairly rudimentary LeBron James pass. (Well, rudimentary for LeBron, anyway.) Apparently Mike Brown noticed, because Williams only played 15 minutes.

LeBron and Dwyane Wade dueled blow for blow during the first half, and the Cavs led by just four at the half. It looked like we might be in for another dogfight like we saw less than two weeks ago in South Beach. Fortunately for the Clevelanders, the third quarter saw the team defense tighten up and Dwyane Wade's aim suffered. Wade scored 18 points in the first half, and only 6 in the second. The Cavs extended their lead to 8 by the end of the third quarter, and pulled away in the final stanza.

1. Trading places.Is it just me, or wasn't it just a few years ago when Dwyane Wade had Shaq and a talented supporting cast, and ultimately won the Finals. Except for that last part, I think it's safe to say that the shoe is on the other foot.

After fighting an uphill battle to correct the mistakes of his first free agent class - a battle which lasted years - Danny Ferry has managed to augment his superstar with considerable talent, including the Big Diesel, who appears to have a little more petrol left in the tank than we were led to believe. The Cavs are also deep enough that they can absorb injuries like the those of Mo Williams and Delonte West for a few weeks and still keep their collective heads above water.

2. This Dwyane Wade fellow is pretty good.Dwyane Wadedefinitely gets helped out by the officials. It's not as bad as it was during the '05-'06 Finals, but let's just say that younger guys like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose aren't getting the same calls when they drive hard to the rack. By contrast, you can barely sneeze on Wade without getting a foul called. When JJ Hickson posterized Wade with a rim-rocking dunk, 99.9% of the league gets whistled and Hickson has a chance for a 3-point play. The zebras pocket their whistles for Flash when it's convenient.

But grumblings about officiating aside, the guy can flat out play. Consider this: Wade is the only legitimate scoring threat on the Heat. If you hold Dwyane Wade to 20 points or fewer, then basically, you win. Beasley averages 15 a night, but he's not polished enough to beat you on his own. Jermaine O'Neal is starting to look like a horse headed for the glue factory. Rafer Alston can't average 10 PPG as a starter. In spite of all that, Wade averages 27 points a night and shoots nearly 47% from the field. Wow.

It would make perfect sense to clog the lane and dare Wade to either shoot jumpers or trust his teammates to beat you, and I'm sure plenty of teams have tried. D-Wade just keeps pouring in the points. Wade isn't as good as LeBron because right now, well, nobody is. But along with Kobe, 'Melo, and Durant, Wade is definitely in the mix for the title of second best NBA player.

3. JJ came to play.Last night's game was pretty reflective of JJ Hickson's development up to this point. Hickson looked a little aimless at times, he struggled to play consistent defense, and he committed a couple of boneheaded turnovers.But those problems were contrasted against not one, not two, but three huge dunks, all of which helped the Cavs gain momentum. One of those dunks was right in D-Wade's mug, and Hickson also shockingly de-posterized Wade with a terrific block.

The point is this - JJ Hickson is not a surefire NBA power forward, and he probably won't be a perennial All-Star. Even so, Hickson is the most athletic player on the team aside from LeBron (arguments could also be made for Jamario Moon), and his potential is undeniable. If he can play more consistent defense and develop an average to above average 15-footer, then he's a keeper. There are worse things that could happen to the Cavs than seeing the trade deadline come and go with JJ Hickson still on the roster.

4. Danny boy.It was nice to see Danny Green log a few solid minutes. Green aired a three-pointer early on, but bounced back and lobbed a perfect alley-oop to LeBron on a fast break.If you can fill out your bench with depth/role players by hitting on second round picks every year or two like the Cavs did with Daniel Gibson (and hopefully with Danny Green), then it makes a general manager's job a whole lot easier.

5. Stick a fork in Reggie, he's done.Reggie Miller has not improved as a commentator over the last few years, and if anything, he's gotten worse. Reggie comes off as a little condescending and he takes air time away from Mike Fratello, the former Cavs coach who actually contributes something worthwhile to the broadcast from time to time.

It might just be my crazy ears, but when I hear Miller talking about basketball, it sounds like it's coming from a pimpled 15-year old who's really jacked up to talk about Magic: the Gathering. It doesn't help that the guy looks like a Ferengi.

Can the Suns please part ways with Steve Kerr so he can get back into the booth and displace Reggie? I know that Bill Walton has had some serious back problems, but c'mon Bill, America needs you! I'm willing to risk Bill taking a few extra trips to the chiropractor if it gets us some better color analysis. You need to have your priorities.

6. Where's Waldo?If you watched closely, you might have noticed TCF patriarch Rich Swerbinsky sitting about three rows behind the scorer's table, and clearly visible for a few seconds during the fourth quarter while the officials were fixing a problem with the clock. Looking good, Rich, although next time I'd go with a sandwich board a la Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 with a big, bold, THECLEVELANDFAN.COM on the front. That's a chance for some free advertising if I ever saw it.

Up next: 2/6, New York Knicks, The Q, 7:30Our heroes try to make it 11 straight against a Knicks team that they beat back in early November. As I write this the Knicks are 19-29, and it seems like buzz for LeBron heading to NYC or NJ has really died down. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a little worried about King James departing, but I don't think that the Big Apple is a logical destination. At least we won't have to listen to the ESPN broadcast crew break down King James expiring deal for 48 minutes.

Monday, February 1

Is it too much to call the ping-pong ball that earned the Cleveland Cavaliers the right to draft LeBron James the single most important ping-pong ball in history? Consider how much it has changed the city of Cleveland and the Cavalier franchise, then mired in a decade of mediocrity that culminated in the laugable 17-65 2002-03 campaign. At worst, it's the most important ping-pong ball in the history of FCF. It's interesting to think that, had we not won that, we still would have ended up with Carmelo or Wade and definitely would have gotten a hell of a lot better. I'm still happiest where we ended up.

Since winning the LeLottery, the Cavs ascended slowly and surely to the ranks of the NBA elite. They're headed to a certain fifth-straight playoff spot and second consecutive division title (after a 33-year drought), qualified for their first NBA Finals in 2007, and appear poised to compete for the championship once again. Because this season won't end until June 2010, the Cavalier edition currently sitting 5.5 games atop the rest of the East isn't eligible for the list. So, let's take a look back at the Decade of LeBron:

It's appropriate that I'm listening to Jay-Z bust some rhymes while I type this, as his New Jersey Nets are currently mired in a 4-41 season that makes this epically bad Cavalier campaign look like the '98 Bulls. I can't even write coherently about this team, so here are a few notes:

- Coach John Lucas (deposed mid-season) recently came out and said that the Cavs were tanking for LeBron. They were, but anytime your coach accuses your club of intentionally losing, well, you've got a decade-worst club on your hands.- 8th in the division? Who the hell aligned this league?- Basketball-Reference has a metric called SRS (simple rating system), in which the Cavs placed last in the NBA at -9.58. I have no idea how this scale is calibrated, but I'm going to guess that's not good. The '10 Nets sport a -11.84, while this year's Cavs are 2nd in the NBA at 6.21, trailing only a certain team they've already smacked around twice. The Cavs were 1st last year.- This club sported a -9.6 point differential. Wait, maybe that's all SRS means? We did outperform our Pythagorean by a game, so there's that, I guess.- Ricky Davis led the team with 20.6 a game, shooting a blazing .410 from the floor. Thank goodness for Ricky's Renegades.- The season highlight: a 89-70 destroying of the Lakers in Gund Arena, after which Darius Miles proclaimed that the Cavs would "shock everybody and make the playoffs." Unbelievable.- Z made as much money as the next three highest-paid Cavs. Hey, at least he led the team in PER. Have I said enough about this team yet?

Trying to rank 30- and 29-win teams makes me feel like I'm writing a Browns piece. It's been a long time since these Cavalier teams were losing in front of 5K fans in the Gund. Anyone remember the Randy Wittman era? This team actually had a worse point differential than the following year's club, so I put them a spot lower.

There's very little interesting to say about this club. Andre Miller was really the only bright spot, leading the team in both points (15.8) and assists (8.0), though he actually was better the following year. 'Spoon led the team in boards at 9.7 a game, and Z led the team in foot surgeries with one. Sadly, that injury wrecked what could have been a decent team - the Cavs were in first place at 15-7 early, but after Z went down, stumbled to a 15-58 finish. Ouch.

What do you want me to say about this team? Just another brick in the wall as far as their slide to the basement. As Nick pointed out the other day, you gotta bottom out in the NBA to get a difference-maker; this organization's genius was not doing so until the following year. Aren't you glad we got the King instead of Yao or Jay Williams? Me too.

Andre Miller was easily the team's bright spot, putting in 16.5 ppg and dishing out 10.9 apg. We haven't really had a playmaking point (other than LeBron) like that since then. Lamond Murray led the club in scoring at 16.6, followed by Miller and Wesley Person (15.1 ppg, .490 shooting, .444 on threes). Z's feet were getting better (11.1/5.4), but he had a ways to go. And Ricky Davis even shot a decent percentage (.480) this year! Yay Ricky!

Tyrone Hill, a solid and underappreciated Cav, pulled down 10.5 boards a game for this lousy team (point differential -3.3). Hey Tyrone, I always thought you played hard.

Another one of these teams, eh? Lots of losses, -3.5 point differential, good year from Andre Miller, ho-hum. This team did feature one last good year from fat Shawn Kemp, at 17.8/8.8 per game. Have you started scrolling down for the playoff years yet?

Hey look, we have a new toy! His name is LeBron and he's only 18. That's really all this season was about: LeBron getting his feet wet and taking the team over from the strong, disciplined leadership of Ricky Davis. OK, that and new uniforms. I still remember LeBron initially calling the club "Ricky's team" - it's even hilarious now considering how LeBron is the unquestioned leader of the contending Cavaliers and Davis is off smoking weed and shooting 35% somewhere.

I didn't realize that the Cavs only missed the postseason by one game in LeBron's rookie campaign, despite a 35-47 record and -2.6 point differential (23rd of 29!). This was the East-West gulf at its finest, though the 54-win Pistons shocked the basketball world in June by knocking off the juggernaut Lakers to claim the championship.

Still, Year 1 of the King was fun; it was the first time in a long time where you felt like they had a decent chance night in and night out to knock off a solid opponent, and LeBron justified the hype with a 20.6/5.5/5.9 that portended the video game numbers he's putting up these days. He did shoot .417/.290/.754, so there was room to improve on that front. I mean, even Ricky Davis (15.3 ppg) was a better marksman this season, and that's saying something. Carlos Boozer emerged as a star in the making with a 15.5/11.4 line, shooting .523 from the floor before his infamous sellout in the off-season. Frankly, Paul Silas' club really made the most with pretty limited team-wide talent this season. Back-to-back first-round picks of DeSagana Diop and Dajuan Wagner are hard to recover from, ya know.

I went to my first Cavs game in a while this year with Doug - I was living in Pittsburgh and hadn't been over in a couple of seasons. Naturally, I ended up at the one game LeBron missed that year. The Cavs still beat the 76ers in a game where I got really drunk and kept pointing out loudly that Allen Iverson led the league in street cred (he had like 35 points that game) and then spilled a beer on the guy in front of me and had to inform him of this because his coat soaked it all up.

Remember the 28 minutes Bruno Sundov played this season? Good times. Any time Bruno Sundov isn't your team's most obscure player, you've got some work to do on the roster.

Kinda like the previous year, only a little more successful. The Cavs subbed Drew Gooden in for the departed Boozer, ditched Ricky, and acquired a little-known Brazilian big man named Anderson Varejao in a rooking of a trade with the Magic, and ended up with seven more wins. They tied New Jersey for the 8th slot in the East but lost out on a tiebreaker. Couldn't the NBA have overruled that and put the Cavs in? Who the hell wanted to see a declining Net squad when we could get LeBron's playoff debut? Oh well.

Bron got a lot better at 27.2/7.4/7.2, bumping up all of his shooting percentages significantly and truly announcing his arrival in the NBA. Z and Gooden started a three-year run as forces in the Cavalier interior, posting averages of 16.9/8.6 and 14.4/9.2. Jeff McInnis handled the point capably with 12.8 pps and 5.1 apg, but clearly wasn't the long-term solution for the Cavs. Neither was Silas, who was canned mid-season.

Also: we had Robert "Tractor" Traylor this year, along with Jiri Welsch. I always enjoyed the Tractor's game, while I didn't enjoy anything about Welsch's performance.

Good news, Cavs fans: the next four teams all made it to the postseason, as 16 of the league's 30 teams do each and every season.

Remember this team? This is the Cavalier playoff club people tend to overlook, and for good reason; they posted a -0.3 point differential yet managed to outperform their Pythagorean by five games to sneak into the playoffs as a four seed. Needless to say, coming off an Eastern Conference championship, people expected a bit more out of the Cavaliers.

The biggest story of the year was the massive mid-season trade that brought Wally Szczerbiak, Delonte West, Ben Wallace, and Joe Smith to town. It made the Cavaliers a much stronger club, led to that game where we won with like six dudes, and helped a so-so team make a reasonably good playoff run. LeBron edged even closer to MVP territory with 30 ppg (leading the league) to go along with 7.9 boards and 7.2 assists per contest. Now that's the LeBron we know! Z had a career year at 14.1/9.3 , backed by 11.3/8.3 from Drew Gooden. Can you believe we still had Larry Hughes for most of this year? He shot a miserable .377 for the season.

The Cavs dispatched the Wiz in the first round of the Playoffs for the third straight year (of course they did) despite some transparent and rather pathetic thug tactics form the Bullets, and faced the 66-16 #1 seed Celtics in the Conference semis. Home court advantage was huge here, as the home team won all seven games in the series. It's a shame we had to play four of them in Massachusetts. Considering that the Celts went on to win the NBA title, that's not a bad way to go out. You could argue that this club could sit at #3 on this list, but I liked the '05-'06 team's defense and spirit.

I'm not going to lie to you - part of me was tempted to leapfrog this club over the team that went on to win the Eastern Conference. But ultimately I decided that was getting too cute; this team won the same number of regular-season games and two fewer playoff series, and that means a lot. Still, I maintain that had they corralled that rebound and managed to knock off the Pistons in Game 6 of the East Semis, they could have taken down the Heat and then the Mavericks, especially if LeBron got a third of the crazy calls Dwyane Wade ended up getting. Ah, what could have been.

Nevertheless, this was a hell of a year, one that saw Cleveland make their first playoff appearance in eight long years in Mike Brown's first year at the helm. They had a +2.2 point differential and, at 50-32, outpaced their Pythagorean by two games. LeBron got the team over the playoff hump in his third season by posting a 31.4/7.0/6.6 line. Interesting that this career-high in ppg was not the one that earned him his lone scoring title. Z and Drew Gooden held their own in the middle, posting averages of 15.6/7.6 and 10.7/8.4, respectively. Considering that chuckers like Larry Hughes and Flip Murray placed 2nd and 3rd in scoring average for the Cavs, it's remarkable that they came so close to a berth in the Conference Finals.

The Wizards series was simply awesome, including three games decided by one point each (all won by Cleveland!), two of which required overtime. Tremendous. I still remember walking around in the rain in Schenectady trying to find a place that'd let me watch the first game; the Grog Shoppe garnered hundreds of dollars in business from me and my friends over the years for doing just that. LeBron had roughly seven game-winners in this series, or so it seemed, as Washington started down the road to becoming the Cavaliers' perennial first-round whipping boys. LeBron opened the playoffs with a triple-double in a Cavalier win, and notched two clutch game-winners (fuck you, Skip Bayless) before dishing to Damon Jones for the baseline series-clincher in a 114-113 overtime win in Game 6.

Then came the East Semis against a strong Detroit Piston club. Cleveland looked outmatched at first, losing two games in the Palace including a 27-point blowout in Game 1. But they started to lock things down on D, led by the emergence of defensive stalwart Anderson Varejao, and ran off three straight wins to take the Pistons to the brink of elimination. After a tough home loss in Game 6, the Cavs ran out of gas and Detroit cruised to the Conference Finals, but the Cavs, with their much-improved defense installed by Brown, served notice that they were going to be in the conversation for years to come.

Some have called this the worst NBA Finals team ever, but who cares? We made the Finals! The Cavs had a solid if unspectacular regular season, ending up 2nd in the conference at 50-32. The real key was the Bulls somehow losing to the Nets in the final game of the season, granting the Cavs a dream path to the Finals. First up was a Wizard team without their top two players, whom the Cavs ripped 4-0, followed by a so-so Nets team whom the Cavs put away 4-2, setting up the inevitable rematch against the Pistons.

The Cavs stuck it to the Pistons in the East Finals, avenging the previous year's seven-game series defeat, thanks to LeBron's insane 48-point double-OT performance in The Palace in Game 5, and a glorious Piston meltdown in Game 6. They got swept by a far superior Spur club in the Finals, but an Eastern Conference title is nothing to sneeze at.

This year's Cavs sported a +3.9 point differential, and placed 5th in team defense, something that has been a strength throughout the Mike Brown years. They made their money on the boards too, averaging a positive rebound margin of four a game. This was key since they shot basically the same (.447) as their opponents (.448). One of those two numbers is good.

The King started to fully realize his potential, putting up a 27.3/6.7/6.0 line. Isn't it crazy how that doesn't even look that good anymore? His shooting percentages were nowhere near current numbers (.476/.319/.698), but he still managed to will a shaky club into the Finals. I mean, Larry Hughes was our second-leading scorer this year! IHS posted an awful .400 bricking percentage. Wow. Z and Drew Gooden were both strong once again in the middle at 11.9/7.7 and 11.1/8.5, respectively. But look at the rest of our rotation: Pavlovic, Damon Jones, Donyell Marshall, Daniel Gibson, Varejao before he became coordinated, etc. It's frankly amazing that this club made the Finals, but man was it ever fun.

I know they didn't make the NBA Finals and the '06-'07 squad did, but you can't possibly convince me that this wasn't the best Cavalier team ever. That '07 team had a really favorable draw - they would have been absolutely torched by the Orlando team that knocked out the Cavaliers.

But before we get to that: what a season! 66 regular-season wins. LeBron claiming his first (and richly deserved) MVP award. Two consecutive playoff sweeps. A +8.9 point differential. Winning the Central by 25 games (that's not a misprint). A 39-2 home mark. All those games where they were up like 60 by half and LeBron and company spent the second half making jokes on the bench. The family photos. A few highlights from the best team in Cavalier history:

- 'Bron's buzzer-beater against the Warriors.- The ridiculous comeback win in the Rose Garden against Portland.- Taking the mantle from Detroit on Super Bowl Sunday with a 90-80 win.- A 13-game win streak in March.- A scrappy second unit almost pulling out an improbable win over Philly in a meaningless regular-season finale. Would have been nice to tie Boston's record.- I got to attend the first two games of the Detroit steamrolling. That was fun.- LeBron's ridiculous game-winner in Game 2 of the Orlando series. The morning after that was literally the worst hangover of my life, but it was totally worth it.

That loss was a soul-crusher, though, wasn't it? It's dulled a bit because they're still really good, better in fact, but man, that's hard. (Don't think they're better this year? We turned Ben Wallace, Wally Szczerbiak, and Sasha Pavlovic into Shaq, Anthony Parker, and Jamario Moon, plus LeBron somehow got better). I thought for sure they were headed for their first NBA title, but no, Orlando had to hit 86% on threes for the entire series so stupid Dwight Howard and coach Ron Jeremy could get rocked by the Lakers in the Finals. Not that I'm bitter.

But I think the '09-'10 squad can get it done. When I'm writing this column in 2020, I'd be more than happy to put this year's model in the #1 slot and maybe have "Won NBA Finals" somewhere in there. Go Cavs.